Kansas move backfiring for Dems?

posted at 8:01 am on September 4, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Party strategists like clever plays involving election law when they create surprises for the other party. When they create surprises for themselves, they tend to enjoy it a lot less — and Democrats may be in the process of discovering that in Kansas. Mary Katharine wrote last night that the Democratic nominee pulled out of the US Senate race in Kansas, theoretically leaving supporters of Chad Taylor to swing to the more popular independent, Greg Orman. This would create a coalition that had a good chance of defeating the incumbent Republican, Pat Roberts, and put a big dent in GOP hopes of controlling the Senate.

Despite filing papers with the Kansas secretary of State withdrawing from the Senate race late Wednesday, Democrat Chad Taylor may be stuck on the ballot this fall.

Two election law statutes have raised questions about whether Taylor gave sufficient cause to remove himself from the ballot, and, if so, whether Democrats must ultimately choose a candidate to replace him.

Kansas law requires any primary-nominated candidate to remain on the ballot for the general election unless special circumstances exist to allow the withdrawal. “Special circumstances” means death, illness, or a declared inability to serve in office, none of which accompanied Taylor’s withdrawal. The Hill links to Taylor’s letter of withdrawal, which says in its entirety (minus the header and footer):

I, Chadwick J. Taylor, Democratic nominee for the United States Senate race, do hereby withdraw my nomination for election effective immediately and request my name be withdrawn from the ballot, pursuant to KSA 25-306b(b).

Note the absence of any declared reason for the withdrawal. The statute cited by Taylor specifically requires a representation that the candidate is “incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected,” emphasis mine, and not just uninterested in doing so. Otherwise, in the same statute that Taylor cites, “no person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office may cause such person’s name to be withdrawn from nomination after the day of the primary election.”

Furthermore, the withdrawal of a party nominee requires the party to replace the nominee, according to KSA 25-3905, also cited by The Hill:

25-3905. Vacancies after primary election filled by party committee or district convention; governor and lieutenant governor vacancies filled by state party delegate convention. (a) When a vacancy occurs after a primary election in a party candidacy, such vacancy shall be filled by the party committee of the congressional district, county or state, as the case may be, except if the vacancy is in a party candidacy for a district office or for the office of member of the state board of education, it shall be filled by district convention held as provided in K.S.A. 25-3904, and amendments thereto, or as provided in K.S.A. 25-3904a, and amendments thereto, and except as otherwise provided in subsection (c). Such convention shall be called within 10 days of receipt of the notice that the vacancy has occurred or will occur. If only one political party nominates a candidate at the primary election and thereafter a vacancy occurs in such party candidacy, any political party may fill such vacancy in the manner specified in this section.

It’s possible that the Democrats could pull together a convention to nominate Orman, but that would make hash of Orman’s independent draw in the race. That would only work if the state of Kansas allows Taylor’s name to be stricken from the ballot, which at least for now they won’t. Democrats may not get the opportunity to hold a convention, absent a representation from Taylor under oath that he has some serious impediment that will keep him from fulfilling the obligations of office, and even then it might now be too late to submit a lawful ballot withdrawal, as the deadline has already passed. And if Taylor manages to concoct such a reason for his own disqualification, that would once again shine the light on the Democrats, who would have recruited and promoted him despite his substantial defect, whatever that might be.

In a way, this looks like a Robert Torricelli move in reverse. The New Jersey incumbent withdrew from the race in the midst of a scandal, and the courts allowed Democrats to replace him with the late Frank Lautenberg even though the filing deadline had passed. Now Democrats will likely have to ask to get their nominee off the ballot after a deadline and fight to keep from being forced to replace him. It has a rather delicious irony to it.

In any case, there is such a thing as being too clever by half, and Democrats may have even exceeded that measure in Kansas. This tawdry and corrupt move will taint their entire ticket, and probably Orman by association as well.

Roberts is polling at only 32% for November, followed by Democrat Chad Taylor at 25%, independent Greg Orman at 23%, and Libertarian Randall Batson at 3%. As weak as a 32% standing is for an incumbent, that still gives him a pretty clear lead due to his
opponents pretty much splitting the anti-Roberts vote evenly. But if one of them was to pull out Roberts would really be in trouble.

In a head to head contest with Taylor, Roberts would lead just 43/39, down from a 48/32 advantage in February.

And in a head to head contest with Orman, Roberts trails 43/33.
Orman would take 30% of the Republican vote while losing only 11% of Democrats to Roberts, and would lead by 41 points with independents at 54/13. Orman is still relatively unknown- only 36% name recognition- but is at a 24/12 favorability spread among those who do have an opinion about him. He is seen favorably by Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.

In the race for Governor we continue to find Democratic challenger Paul Davis with a small lead over Sam Brownback, 39/37, with Libertarian candidate Keen Umbehr at 9%.

This is actually an unusual instance where the Libertarian candidate is helping the Republican- Umbehr supporters say their second choice would be Davis by a 65/21 margin over Brownback, and when you reallocate those folks to their second choice Davis’ lead expands to 44/39. Umbehr’s presence in the race is actually doing Brownback a favor by splitting the opposition to him some.

Yes, this is a dirty underhanded move by the Dems and a cynical attempt to manipulate the election outcome.

That said, I’m really uncomfortable with the state requiring a private group (in this case the Democratic Party) to either keep a candidate who no longer wishes to run, or put up a new candidate when they do not wish to do so. But that might just be reflexive anti-government thinking. I’ll have to ponder this question a bit more before making up my mind.

It’s possible that the Democrats could pull together a convention to nominate Orman, but that would make hash of Orman’s independent draw in the race.

Depending on which judge/Lawgiver-In-Black gets the inevitable case, I doubt the Rats can nominate Orman. KSA 25-202(c) reads:

No candidate for any national, state, county or township office shall file for office as a partisan candidate in a primary election and also file for office as an independent candidate for any national, state, county or township office in the general election immediately following.

No candidate for any national, state, county or township office shall file for office as a partisan candidate in a primary election and also file for office as an independent candidate for any national, state, county or township office in the general election immediately following.

Steve Eggleston on September 4, 2014 at 8:25 AM

Doesn’t apply. Orman is running as nonpartisan first, not partisan. He did not run in a primary. Statute is just the opposite of this case.

And in a head to head contest with Orman, Roberts trails 43/33.
Orman would take 30% of the Republican vote while losing only 11% of Democrats to Roberts, and would lead by 41 points with independents at 54/13.

– Idiot

Yeah, ‘cuz, like, um, ya know, 30% of Republicans are still going to vote for the Faux-Indie after this or something!

If the GOP were smart (stop laughing!!) they’d be on the air immediately saying “If Orman is independent, why are the Dem’s trying to help him get elected?” Pound on the fact if Orman were really independent the Dems wouldn’t be trying to help him. But, of course, that would mean someone on Roberts campaign or in the GOP Senate leadership were smart. And if the GOP leadership were smart, they would have had Roberts resign and let the bright, articulate, conservative actual medical doctor Wolf win the nomination in Kansas.

In a way, this looks like a Robert Torricelli move in reverse. The New Jersey incumbent withdrew from the race in the midst of a scandal, and the courts allowed Democrats to replace him with the late Frank Lautenberg even though the filing deadline had passed.

I saw what you did there…

But in fairness, Frank Lautenberg was not yet dead at the time. It just seemed that way.

And in a head to head contest with Orman, Roberts trails 43/33.
Orman would take 30% of the Republican vote while losing only 11% of Democrats to Roberts, and would lead by 41 points with independents at 54/13.

– Idiot

Yeah, ‘cuz, like, um, ya know, 30% of Republicans are still going to vote for the Faux-Indie after this or something!

Resist We Much on September 4, 2014 at 8:38 AM

Sounds like kos analysis, who was still saying Lieberman lost somehow at 4 am election night until his own people told him “Dude, go to bed”.

Yes, this is a dirty underhanded move by the Dems and a cynical attempt to manipulate the election outcome.

That said, I’m really uncomfortable with the state requiring a private group (in this case the Democratic Party) to either keep a candidate who no longer wishes to run, or put up a new candidate when they do not wish to do so. But that might just be reflexive anti-government thinking. I’ll have to ponder this question a bit more before making up my mind.

AngusMc on September 4, 2014 at 8:22 AM

It sounds to me like this law was meant to prevent “a dirty underhanded move” such as this. It was probably written during a time when people were expected to follow through on their commitments. I share your reflexive anti-government impulse, but I would characterize it more as the government forcing the party to fulfill the contract it has made with the voting public.

Kansas law requires any primary-nominated candidate to remain on the ballot for the general election unless special circumstances exist to allow the withdrawal. “Special circumstances” means death, illness, or a declared inability to serve in office, none of which accompanied Taylor’s withdrawal. The Hill links to Taylor’s letter of withdrawal, which says in its entirety (minus the header and footer):

Exactly. Laws are only meant to apply to Democrat political opponents.

And I’m sure they’ll judge shop this one till they get what they want.

ConstantineXI on September 4, 2014 at 8:23 AM

Because Democrats absolutely hate a Constitutional Republic, and a free election by knowledgeable voters is anathema to them. That is why they will forever demand the qualified vote be diluted with the LIV, criminal, easily purchased, corrupt and self-serving voter. When they can’t receive numerical superiority there, then they stuff ballot boxes, count chads, and stick racial enforcers outside voting booths.

They can’t have an informed vote, because their ideology is violently opposed to our nation’s founding principles. They must lie, cheat and deceive because what they want to do is repulsive to honest Americans.

Yeah, ‘cuz, like, um, ya know, 30% of Republicans are still going to vote for the Faux-Indie after this or something!

Resist We Much on September 4, 2014 at 8:38 AM

A prospect made even less likely by out-of-state Democrats like Ned cheering Orman on as if he’s no different from Vermont ‘independent’ Senator Bernie Saunders, who somehow manages to vote with Barack Obama and Harry Reid every single time.

Orman’s trying to get voters to believe he’ll caucus with whichever party gets to 50 Senators first. His fellow Democrats are letting everyone know which party’s side he’d really be on if sent to Washington.

That said, I’m really uncomfortable with the state requiring a private group (in this case the Democratic Party) to either keep a candidate who no longer wishes to run, or put up a new candidate when they do not wish to do so. But that might just be reflexive anti-government thinking. I’ll have to ponder this question a bit more before making up my mind.

AngusMc on September 4, 2014 at 8:22 AM

The Democratic Party is not a “private group” in the sense that a church or civic organization is. It has official status within government, which, for instance, provides the funding for it to carry out primaries. If they want to be on the state’s ballot, they have to play by the state’s rules.

Because by hook or by crook or by think-veiled electoral maneuvering, you don’t care how the Democrat wins. I’ll bet you’d be pleased-as-punch if there were blatant vote fraud as long the other side loses. That way you can continue to spew your childish schoolyard taunts – which I think is the whole point of the exercise for you.

Kansas law requires any primary-nominated candidate to remain on the ballot for the general election unless special circumstances exist to allow the withdrawal. “Special circumstances” means death, illness, or a declared inability to serve in office, none of which accompanied Taylor’s withdrawal.

So if he uses rank stupidity as a special circumstance, does that take him off?

That said, I’m really uncomfortable with the state requiring a private group (in this case the Democratic Party) to either keep a candidate who no longer wishes to run, or put up a new candidate when they do not wish to do so. But that might just be reflexive anti-government thinking. I’ll have to ponder this question a bit more before making up my mind.

AngusMc on September 4, 2014 at 8:22 AM

The law is designed to prevent “bait and switch”, a well-known form of fraud in the private world. I support its use in the electoral world as well since it helps prevent political parties from totally corrupting the voting process.

That’s not shocking. I talked to a friend last night who listens to sports talk radio while working. He’s a huge Broncos fan and coaches his son’s football, basketball, and baseball teams. He pays attention to politics thru Facebook so he’s a little more informed than most people but not by much.

He’s a pretty good indicator of what the average person hears every day. He didn’t even know that there was a 2nd-hand account of Officer Wilson’s side of events in Mike Brown’s shooting.

He told me that news of ISIS is everywhere and wanted to know why Obama won’t do anything. When I mentioned that Obama has known how dangerous they are for a year and that he took a month to decide on sending in 1st-tier operators to rescue American journalist prisoners, he shook his head and asked, “Isn’t there some way we can get rid of Obama?”

In any case, there is such a thing as being too clever by half, and Democrats may have even exceeded that measure in Kansas. This tawdry and corrupt move will taint their entire ticket, and probably Orman by association as well.

It’s always great fun when devious people wind up outsmarting themselves. The poetic justice leads to a certain … schadenfreude.

My two twenty-something libertarian leaning sons have both commented that Orman is just creepy in his ads. They were very negative about his demeanor and his sales pitch before the primary and they haven’t changed their minds.

Chad Taylor is the next big thing in Kansas Democrat Party politics – a very slick DA – my guess is he withdrew because he had no intention of losing to Roberts and/or Orman.

That huge 1st District of Western Kansas, probably 50-60 counties – usually votes 80-85% Republican and I have no reason to believe it will be any different this year.

It’s time for pragmatism – I voted for Wolfe, but it was not meant to be (because of that huge 1st District Republican monolith voting bloc). I will vote for Roberts based on his pro-life record – not a chance in heck that I would give the KS Democrats a vote in Washington.

That huge 1st District of Western Kansas, probably 50-60 counties – usually votes 80-85% Republican and I have no reason to believe it will be any different this year.

kansaskaye on September 4, 2014 at 1:27 PM

This is a good point. All but 4 of those counties went for Roberts in the primary, as well. So if they (we, though I voted for Wolf) voted for Roberts in that primary, I don’t see them switching votes now.

When candidates less interested to serve than W.T.Sherman are needed, the KS Dems will nominate them, and then they’ll all go off somewhere for the duration.
As Will Rogers said: I’m not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.